John FinlayParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. There are three parties involved in specific claims: the first nations, Canada, and the provincial governments. This commission is being changed in order that decisions can be made more quickly and more satisfactorily so that first nations can get on with the matter of controlling their own land.

Mr. Speaker, the disastrous national energy program costs hundreds of businesses thousands of jobs and leaves families in turmoil due to failed Liberal Ouija board economic planning. We all want a clean environment. The Kyoto costs are not explained and not detailed. Provinces and businesses have not had their say. The members for Edmonton West and Edmonton Southeast must stand up with Albertans and say no to Kyoto.

How could the government have the audacity to ask Canadians to buy into the unexplained Liberal, shoot from the lip, Kyoto plan? How?

Mr. Speaker, the problem that the opposition has is denying that there is a plan, denying that there is this document in existence, and therefore it cannot get around to reading what is in it.

However, if the hon. member would like to, this weekend, off the record, perhaps behind closed doors, sneak out a copy and look to page 31 he will get the figures that he is asking for. It is all in the book. All he has to do is recognize the book exists and read it.

Sarmite BulteParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that today the Minister of Canadian Heritage along with Premier Lord in New Brunswick are announcing $2 million to assist in the implementation of New Brunswick's new Official Languages Act.

We are proud to be partners with New Brunswick as it assists its local municipalities to comply with the act, the purpose of which is to create an awareness and to promote the use of French and English in the administration of that province.

Mr. Speaker, we are already taking action because we are concerned about the impact and the potential impact of this trade dispute on Canadian workers in the softwood lumber industry.

I would remind the hon. member that each year on average $450 million is provided through employment insurance benefits to workers in the forestry industry. We recently identified $246 million in specific new targeted measures specifically for workers in the softwood lumber industry. In Quebec alone, $600 million is transferred every year for active measures through the employment insurance fund, as well as additional money specifically for older workers.

Mr. Speaker, Ontario has already had a blind date with Kyoto. The federal government signed a treaty capping sulphur dioxide emissions in 1988 and imposed those limits only in Ontario. It has cost Ontario consumers an arm and a leg when it comes to paying electricity bills. The Kyoto agreement will drive hydro bills even higher when it caps greenhouse gas emissions.

Why will the government not heed the lesson learned in Ontario and save us all from Kyoto ugly?

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely astonished that an Ontario member would get up in the House and reject the concept of reducing acid rain, which has had such a dramatic impact on the streams and lakes of Ontario.

I would further suggest that it is extraordinary that she would get up here and talk about the program to reduce acid rain and SO

2

, and fail to point out that, when we finally came to do it, it cost industry in Ontario one-fifth of the amount that it had calculated at the beginning.

Ingenuity takes over and people reduce costs when they are required to do it. That is why ratification of Kyoto is so important next week.

Mr. Speaker, following the cancellation in 1993 of the EH-101 contract, which cost taxpayers over $500 million, and following the government's attempt to split the contract into two parts to let the Prime Minister save face, the government has decided to change its mind yet again and is now proposing a single tender to replace the old Sea Kings.

Since our national defence policy still has not been defined, why did the Minister of National Defence wait so long before starting all over, delaying the replacement of helicopters that put their crews' lives in danger, and whose service life has completely expired.

John O'ReillyParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, the minister has said many times that he wants to get the right aircraft for the Canadian Forces as soon as possible. He moved yesterday to announce that he is doing just that. These aircraft will be on stream quicker on a single source contract and they will be fully equipped to replace the Sea Kings.

This approach accelerates the process, has less risk and reduces the cost to Canadians. It is expected that the winning bid will be announced some time in 2004.

There is another group of people in this country who could really use some good news and those are caregivers who deliver care to thousands of families across the country, and most of those caregivers are women.

Two throne speeches, a Romanow recommendation and a private member's bill delivered by the NDP and to be debated on Thursday, deal with that specific issue.

Will the human resources minister at least announce a program before Christmas that will help these people in the financial stress that they undergo and alleviate the pain that they are going through?

Mr. Speaker, supporting Canadians balance workplace-family challenges is a priority for the government. We recently doubled parental benefits so Canadian parents have the choice of staying home with their new children for up to a year.

In the Speech from the Throne, as the hon. member mentioned, we also recognized that there is a role to be played in reducing the moral dilemma of working and caring for gravely ill children or dying parents.

The Romanow commission has recommended that we act on this, and, with the support of the hon. member and the House, I hope we will do so very soon.

Mr. Speaker, following the fishery moratorium in 1992, the government offered a number of licence buyouts to fishermen in order to reduce the numbers involved in the fishery.

Some of those who sold back their licences to the government were given a lump sum tax free payment. Some were taxed on 75% of the amount, some were taxed on 50% of the amount and some were taxed on 25% of the amount. Why the discrepancy in such a program?

Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to receive that question as notice. It does require that the Income Tax Act be followed. I would be happy to see that the member opposite receives a detailed analysis so that he will understand the differences.